ERIC EJ795167: Teachers' Perceptions of the Efficacy of the Open Court Program for English Proficient and English Language Learners

2007·0.05 MB·English

by  ERIC

STteevaecnh eKr. ELdeue,c Lataiosins iQ Aujaayrtie, r&ly R, Sauchmeml Reri c2h0a0r7ds
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy
of the Open Court Program
for English Proficient
and English Language Learners
By Steven K. Lee, Lasisi Ajayi, & Rachel Richards
Introduction
The civil-rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s
was instrumental in the clamor for change in an edu-
Steven K. Lee is a cational system that failed to provide equal opportu-
professor and associate nities for learning. The dismantling of segregation
dean of the Graduate policy was essentially to ensure that all students had
School of Education at equal access to education. However, this goal remains
Portland State largely elusive because significant disparity in aca-
University, Portland, demic achievement among students of various racial,
Oregon; Lasisi Ajayi is ethnic, and cultural backgrounds persists today.
an assistant professor in Responding to the myriad of problems in educa-
the College of Education tion in California, the state government proposed
at San Diego State and passed Senate Bill 2042 (1998) titled “Teacher
University, San Diego, Preparation Is Changing.” The bill was enacted to
California; and Rachel overhaul teacher preparation programs in the state.
Richards is a doctoral The California Commission on Teacher Credential-
candidate at Portland ing (CCTC) publicly announced that it was “con-
State University. cerned with the quality and effectiveness of the
19
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy of the Open Court Program
preparation of teachers and other school practitioners” and that it was determined to
“establish and implement strong, effective standards of quality for the preparation and
assessment of credential candidates” by setting specific standards individual teachers
were expected to meet before they could be licensed to teach (2004, p. 1). A committee
was formed to study California schools. The committee in its report, California’s
Lowest-Performing Schools: Who they are, the challenges they face, and how they
are improving, classified 109 elementary schools in the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) among the lowest-performing schools in the state.
The report identified the challenges: According to the report, compared to
secondary schools, elementary schools as a whole faced slightly greater challenges.
In addition, more challenges were found among English learners (EdSource, 2003
p. 34). The Committee recommended reforms in elementary education in the form
of “school-wide adoptions of a unified, well-integrated curriculum and instruc-
tional approach” (EdSource, 2003, p. 34). This school-wide focus meant that all
teachers were to use the same books, receive the same training on how to use the
curriculum effectively, share a common set of expectations for student performance,
and use the same methods to assess student progress as well as help students who
are experiencing difficulties in reading and language arts.
The adoption of the recommendation meant changes in kindergarten through
third grade curricula that included adoption of a structured English program; i.e.,
Open Court. The adoption of LAUSD’s recommendations also included main-
streaming ELL students into English classes, reducing class-size to 20 pupils per
teacher, developing school intervention programs, and offering district-sponsored
workshops and seminars. With the implementation of these “reforms,” LAUSD
(2001) reported that students’ achievement scores in Reading/Language Arts in
Figure 1
Los Angeles Unified School District
Stanford 9 Language Mean Percentiles Grades 2-5 1997-2002
50
45
40
35
30
Percentiles25
20
15
10
5
0
2 3 4 5
Grade level
1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002
20
Steven K. Lee, Lasisi Ajayi, & Rachel Richards
Stanford 9 examinations went up for five consecutive years in second grade through
fifth (K and first grade pupils were not tested) (see Figure 1 below).
Nevertheless, further analysis of achievement scores showed that the average
scores of ELLs consistently lagged behind that of their English proficient counter-
parts during the five year period. Criticisms of the current situation include school
policies and practices that have prevented teachers from integrating their profes-
sional competencies and resources in planning English language programs for
students and methods that are not suitable for integrating and coordinating
instructions for English proficient and ELL in the same classes (Genesee 1994).
Similarly Ajayi (2005a) in a study of meaning-making activities in a second-grade,
mixed elementary classroom in Los Angeles concluded that instructional practices
did not teach English learners to construct vocabulary meanings to reflect their
identities and subjectivities in terms of their interests, needs, priorities, and
expectations. Furthermore, Toohey (2003) noted that the practices in English
mixed schools “appear in effect to prevent the increasing empowerment and active
participation of some of those defined as second language learners” (p. 95).
Interestingly, achievement scores for the upper grades remained virtually un-
changed during the same period.
Open Court is published by McGraw Hill and has been approved by the No Child
Left Behind Act as an appropriate research-based reading program. Open Court
Reading is advertised as “a research-based curriculum grounded in systematic,
explicit instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics and word knowledge, compre-
hension skills and strategies, inquiry skills and strategies, and writing and language
arts skills and strategies” (Open Court website, 2005). The Open Court program was
adopted as part of the efforts to provide all elementary school students in California
the English Language competence needed to succeed academically and socially.
The developers of Open Court often cite the research conducted by the National
Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) in 1994 to support its
effectiveness. The study touted Open Court as the most effective reading program
for increasing economically disadvantaged children’s reading achievement. In
1996, the results were shared with the California State Assembly Education
Committee. Interestingly, as Taylor (1998) pointed out, the announcement was
made prior to the study being peer reviewed. Moustafa and Land (2001) outlined
the important problems with the NICHD research and did research of their own to
show that Open Court was actually less effective than other reading curricula for
economically disadvantaged students.
Peck and Serrano (2002) examined the suitability of Open Court for ELL
students and found that Open Court was faulted by teachers for “presupposing
background knowledge that ELL students did not have” and that the “rapid
instructional pace and lack of interaction caused ELL students to tune out.” Peck
and Serrano (2002) also found that teachers felt the Open Court’s guide for adapting
the curriculum for ESL was not useful.
21
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy of the Open Court Program
Background
Teachers as Agent of Curriculum Implementation
The ultimate success of a language program depends, to a large extent, on
teachers’ familiarity with the program and its application to meeting instructional
objectives. Richards (2003) argued that many steps can be taken to create a positive
learning environment but ultimately it is the teachers’ efforts, commitment, and
resourcefulness that determine the success of a program. Richards contended that
“good teachers can often compensate for deficiencies in the curriculum, the
materials, or the resources they make use of in their teaching” (p. 209). Given that
the teacher’s theories, beliefs, educational knowledge, skills and practical class-
room experience typically serve as the basis for judgments and decisions about a
program’s workability and relevance, the teacher’s role is critical to the success of
a language program. It seems plausible to assume that the teacher’s perspectives and
views are important to understanding the effectiveness of a curricular program. It
is also possible that teachers’ beliefs, values, and perceptions may contradict or even
conflict with curriculum objectives set forth by the district. Hence, a language
program that does not take into account teachers’ expectations, interests, and
perspectives runs the risk of setting “the stage for angst and doubt in teachers,
leading to lower personal and professional efficacy. . . and most seriously, continued
failure for students most at risk” (Kameeni, Carnine, & Dixon, 1995, p. 3).
Literature on Mixed Classrooms
Current literature on ESL seems to suggest that there are fundamental problems
with the placement of English language learners in mixed class-rooms (combining
ELL and English-only students for all instruction). For example, Chaudron (1988)
documented the teachers’ “apparent disparity in treatment” (p. 119) of ELL and
English-only students. He also observed a “mismatch between teachers and
students’ cultural norms that resulted in a differential treatment of students during
classroom interactions” (p. 119). Laosa (1979), in a similar study, concluded that
teachers tend to be more negative towards, less interactive with, and more critical
of ELL students in mixed classrooms. This is similar to the conclusion made by
Mckeon (1994), who noted that teachers’ interactions with ELLs tended to be more
managerial than instructional. Lee (1999) also found that although support for
bilingual education was high among parents whose children were enrolled in
bilingual programs, the majority of the parents preferred that their children be
placed in mainstream classes. Lee hypothesized that in addition to the stigmatism
involved in bilingual education, there might have been issues related to student
placement. Genesee (1994) claimed that English language teaching practices and
policies alienate ELLs from the social aspects of their lives and promote annihila-
tion of their home language and culture. The school thus becomes an agent of
“socializ(ing) children to the values, beliefs and goals of the dominant society.”
22
Steven K. Lee, Lasisi Ajayi, & Rachel Richards
More recent works in identity formation (Norton, 1995; Norton & Toohey,
2001; Toohey, 2003; and Ajayi, 2005) have shown serious fundamental problems
in the conceptualization and practice of implementing language teaching programs
in mixed classrooms. For example, in a critical examination of instructional
practices in mixed classrooms, Toohey (2003) documented evidence of
marginalization and concluded that the structure of the social world of classrooms
“systematically excluded (ELLs) from just those conversations in which they might
legitimately peripherally participate with child experts, English old-timers” (p. 93).
Similarly, Norton (1995) in her ground-breaking work on socio-cultural identity
and language learning concluded that classroom teaching practices neither con-
ceive of integrating language learners with the social, cultural, and economic
contexts of learning nor view language learning as an investment in learners’ own
socio-cultural identities. She further contended that such practices have not
investigated how “relations of power in the social world affect social interaction
between second language learners and target language speakers” (p.12). The
problems highlighted by these criticisms seem not to have been addressed in the
framework for teaching English language in California.
A Summary of California Reading/Language Arts Framework
California’s Reading/Language Arts Framework provides a blueprint for
defining the goals of English language learning, organizing language instruction,
designing curriculum, specifying instruction, and identifying the role of teachers.
The framework spells out in details what to teach, how to teach, and the expected
outcomes. The framework also provides recommendations for classroom instruc-
tional activities and their time allocation. For instructional activities, the document
recommends direct instruction of concepts and vocabulary of specific texts. For
time allocation, the document recommends K-3 spend 2.5 hours per day in reading/
language arts direct instruction and suggests educators ensure the allotted time “is
given priority and is protected from interruption” (p.13).
Under the recommendations of the framework, educators must ensure that
different types of assessments are used at different points (before, during, and after
instruction) and also must provide to parents information related to what they are
teaching, how much the students are learning, and what the students have mastered.
With the belief that the instructional materials “can greatly influence the amount
and rate of learning in classrooms” (p. 14), the framework recommends that:
Instructional materials incorporate specific strategies, teaching/instructional activi-
ties, procedures, examples, and opportunities for review and application consistent
with current and confirm research.
Instructional materials prioritize and sequence essential skills and strategies in a
logical, coherent manner and demonstrate the relationship between fundamental skills
(e.g., decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension) (p. 14).
23
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy of the Open Court Program
For ELLs the blueprint identifies vocabulary as the most formidable challenge
they encounter and consequently recommends that ELL students be helped through
pre-teaching, vocabulary instruction, modeling pronunciation, scaffolding, stu-
dent practice in discussions, writing assignments, and information about the origins
and use of words. The blueprint states that instructions for ELLs must be presented
“overwhelmingly in English” (p. 233). Specifically for kindergarten through
second grade, the document asserts that students in elementary schools who are
learning English “can participate fully in regular classroom language arts instruc-
tion” (p. 233). This claim is contrary to conventional academic discourse that
inequitable social structures are reproduced in day-to-day social interactions in
mixed classrooms (Norton, 1995). Toohey (2003) argued that such social practices
create an atmosphere for the marginalization of language learners because of their
construction as language deficit learners—those who do not have the symbolic
capital (Bourdieu, 1991) to participate in classroom discursive practices.
On the role of teachers, the document has acknowledged the positive impact
of effective teachers on student achievement. However, the document does not
provide any specific role for the teacher in his or her involvement in language-
program design and development. It only notes that teachers’ instructional prac-
tices will be most effective if they adhere to the guidelines; thus, the framework does
not view teachers as “active agents in the development of their own practice, as
decision-makers using their specialist knowledge to guide their actions in particu-
lar situations” (Calderhead, 1987 as cited in Richards, 2000, p. 65).
The California Reading/Language Arts Framework constructs literacy educa-
tion as reading and writing in traditional print texts rather than in broader terms, such
as articulating the ways and means young learners express themselves and how the
practice of literacy can be linked to their “social and personal identities and their
quest for meaning, personal power, and pleasure” (Mahiri, 2001, p. 384). A
theoretical framework for effective literacy practices in contemporary times must
be able to frame literacy skills as a tool to access the core curricula in the classrooms.
Utilization of emerging technological and multimodal representational forms, such
as to critically analyze, deconstruct, and construct different texts and discourses to
“generate visions of new worlds” (Luke, 2001, p. 672) would better today’s students.
The California framework does not capture a broad perspective; hence the adoption
of it does not benefit students as they participate in the educational, cultural and
social contexts of their lives.
Open Court Program Adoption
The adoption of the Open Court program with a set of teaching materials by the
LAUSD in the mid 1990s was meant to provide elementary schools with a uniform
and structured curriculum. With the previous Success for All program, teachers had
to choose from a variety of methods including look-and-say, phonetic, alphabetic,
phonics, and others for teaching beginning reading (Samuels et al, 1992). The
24
Steven K. Lee, Lasisi Ajayi, & Rachel Richards
design, instructional content, instructional methodology, and implementation of
the Open Court program are significantly influenced by the theories and assump-
tions of the underlying phonic/fluency method.
Phonic instruction essentially teaches students how to understand the relation-
ship between the letters (graphemes) and the individual sounds of a language
(phonemes) and then use the relationship to read and write (National Institute for
Literacy, 2001). The basic principle of fluency reading is that it “consists of optical,
perceptual, syntactic, and semantic cycles, each melting into the next as readers try
to get meaning as efficiently as possible using minimal time and energy” (Samuels
et al, 1992, p. 126). Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun (1995) and Clark (1995) identified direct
instruction as the most effective method for teaching phonic-based instructional
program. They defined direct instruction as a teaching with an “academic focus, a high
degree of teacher direction and control, high expectations for student’s progress, a
system for managing time, and an atmosphere of relatively neutral effect” (p. 338). The
instructional practices of direct instruction, which Open Court utilizes, consists of five
stages: activating pupils’ background knowledge, lesson presentation, discussion,
corrective feedback, and structure practice (Joyce et al, 1995, pp. 339-342).
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to examine teachers’ perceptions of the Open Court
language program. More specifically, the study attempts to examine teacher
perspectives and opinions on the effectiveness of the Open Court program to
facilitate English language teaching for English proficient and ELL students in K–
3rd grade. In addition, the study attempts to identify group differences between
experienced and inexperienced teachers in their perceptions of the program. To
further understand teachers’ views, the study also analyzed teachers’ recommenda-
tions for improving the program.
Method
Sample
Twenty-five elementary schools in LAUSD were randomly selected for the
study. Working collaboratively with district and school literacy coaches, we
requested four volunteer teachers (two experienced and two inexperienced) from
each school to participate in the study. In all 100 surveys were distributed (four per
school) with an initial return rate of 93%; the remaining seven questionnaires were
subsequently obtained, these teachers having misplaced their original copies.
Subjects
For this study, the experienced group was defined as credentialed teachers who
had been teaching for five or more years and the inexperienced group consisted of
25
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy of the Open Court Program
teachers who had taught for less than five years. The subjects’ experience using the
Open Court program ranged from one year to seven years. The number of Open Court
training sessions that the subjects received prior to teaching ranged from none to
five. The range for number of Open Court training sessions while teaching was none
to 20; thus, most of the training for using Open Court occurred during teaching.
The subjects of the study consisted of 81 female and 19 male teachers. Fifty percent
of the subjects were experienced teachers and the rest were inexperienced teachers.
Twenty-two teachers indicated that they were teaching first grade, 16 indicated that
they were second-grade teachers, and 21 responded that they taught third grade.
Nine teachers taught fourth grade, eight taught fifth and five taught kindergarten.
The remaining 19 teachers indicated that they taught grade-level combinations.
Twenty-two of the teachers responded that they had taught Open Court for zero to
two years, 71 taught it between three and five years, and seven teachers indicated
that they had taught Open Court between six and eight years.
In terms of Open Court training sessions attended prior to teaching the program,
51% noted that they did not attend any training, 23% indicated that they attended
one training session, and 18% attended two training sessions. Similarly, in their
response to the number of training sessions they attended during the course of the
school year (when they responded to this instrument) 5 teachers indicated none, 11
teachers indicated one, while 32 teachers answered two times and 13 indicated six
times. When asked about the frequency of collaboration with colleagues to consult
on Open Court, 6% answered never, 57% indicated once per week, 23% replied once
every two weeks, and 14% of the teachers indicated once a month. Table 1 below
presents a summary of the teachers’ biographical information.
Instrumentation
An attitudinal scale was designed to collect information from participating
teachers. Section A consisted of 11 questions relating to the background informa-
tion of participating teachers such as gender, professional training, years of teaching
experience in elementary school(s), and years of teaching the Open Court program.
Section B had a 22-item 5-point Likert-type attitudinal scale that asked teachers to
Table 1. Summary of Teachers’ Background.
Gender Teach. Exp. Grade Level Exp. with OP (yrs) OCTPT
female male Inexp Exper 1 to 3 4 to 6 Combo 0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 8 0 to 1 2plus
N=81N=19 N=0 N=50 N=59 N=22 N=19 N=22 N=71 N=7 N=74 N=26
81% 19% 50% 50% 59% 22% 19% 22% 71% 7% 74% 26%
Key: OCTPT = Open Court Training Prior to Teaching
Combo = Combination of Grade Levels
Exp with OP = Experience with Teaching the Open Court Program
Teach. Exp = Teaching Experience at Elementary School
26
Steven K. Lee, Lasisi Ajayi, & Rachel Richards
respond to whether Open Court met the goals set in the Reading/Language Arts
Framework for California Public Schools (RLAF, 1999). The content of the
attitudinal scale was closely related to the provisions of the California framework.
Teachers responded to the perceived effectiveness of the program for English
proficient and ELL students. Issues that were incorporated into the instrument
included whether the program promoted differentiated instruction, facilitated the
use of a variety of instructional strategies and activities, promoted the use of
appropriate materials, and suggested or provided learning activities that were
related to learners’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Other issues included time
allocation, program administration and community participation. In section C,
teachers responded to an open-ended question in which they were asked to list three
aspects of the program that they considered most effective, three features they
considered least effective, and three improvements they would like to be incorpo-
rated into the program. The teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions were
analyzed via grouping under broad categories. Using frequency counts the data
were ranked from most frequent to least frequent.
Results
An initial t-test was performed to assess whether there was a significant
difference in teacher’s perceptions of Open Court effectiveness for ELL (English
language learners) vs. EPS (English proficient) students. Results indicated that the
mean for ELL=2.51 (SD=.44) was less than the mean for EPS=2.72 (SD=.35) and the
t-test at .05 DF indicated that these differences were statistically significant (See
Table 2).
Regression analyses were performed to compare each teacher variable with
teachers’ perceptions of Open Court effectiveness for English proficient and ELL
students. Results indicated that the teachers’ experience and frequency of Open
Court training were slightly significant for their perceptions of the effectiveness of
the program for EPS students. However, the result showed that both experience and
frequency of training were not significant in the teachers’ perceptions of the
program for ELL students (See Tables 3 and 4).
Further t-tests indicated that teachers with less experience, (t [50] =.044, p<.05),
viewed Open Court as more effective with English proficient students than teachers
with more experience, (t[50]=.052, p>.05) (See Table 5).
Table 2. Difference in Teachers Perceptions of Open Court Effectiveness for ELL
(English Language Learners) vs. EPS (English Proficient Students).
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
EPS 100 2.7268 .35307 .03531
ELL 100 2.5123 .44012 .04401
27
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy of the Open Court Program
Table 3. Teacher Variables and Teacher Perception of Open Court Effectiveness
with EnglishProficient Students.
Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.642 .067 39.703 .000
TeachExp .137 .073 .194 1.875 .064
OCExp .012 .078 .017 .149 .881
OCTrain .132 .084 .172 1.567 .120
Collabor -.051 .071 -.072 -.726 .470
TeachExp=Teacher Experience, OCExp=Open Court Experience, OCTrain=Amount of Open Court
Training, Collabor=Frequency of Collaboration on Open Court
Table 4. Teacher Variables and Teacher Perception of Open Court Effectiveness
with English Language Learners.
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.496 .085 29.403 .000
TeachExp .128 .093 .146 1.380 .171
OCExp -.035 .100 -.039 -.345 .731
OCTrain .104 .108 .109 .966 .337
Collabor -.106 .090 -.119 -1.170 .245
TeachExp=Teacher Experience, OCExp=Open Court Experience, OCTrain=Amount of Open Court
Training, Collabor=Frequency of Collaboration on Open Court
Table 5. Teacher Experience and Perception of Open Court Effectiveness with
English Proficient Students.
Teach Exp. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
EPS .00 50 2.6473 .31405 .04441
1.00 50 2.8064 .37458 .05297
Regarding Open Court training, the same trend existed. Teachers with less
training in Open Court actually viewed the program as more effective for English
proficient students, (t[50]=.041, p<.05), than teacher’s with more Open Court
training, (t[50] =.063, p>.05) (See Table 6).
Tables 7 and 8 below provide a summary of the frequency counts (FC) of three
aspects the teachers considered most effective, three features that were least
effective and three recommendations for improving Open Court for English-only
28